I think honestly it is the incentives of streaming and how the media works.
53 karma · joined October 15, 2025
I ended up in situation where that wasn't possible. I wasn't sure how that happened. But it did.
I have done many installations over the years on real hardware and VMs. It only happened once, but it can happen.
I could also bring up the issues with the auto partition layout that is suggest which can make impossible to install any larger of software after installation. Or how the disks can be confusingly labelled in some cases (especially in VMs).
The point being communicated is that it isn't as straightforward as many people claim.
I first started mucking about with it in like 3.8/3.9, and you had to do something which was very archaic (even for 20 years) with calculating partition size, so it has improved.
> I can't see why you would end up with an installation medium containing a different installer than everyone else.
I don't appreciate how you worded this.
I am not lying about my experience. I just can't remember the exact set of steps of what happened because it happened several months ago now.
They have gotten used to stuff like this and think is normal.
Debian has similar issues with making partitions too small. It makes the /boot partition so small that if you have more than a couple kernel images, you run out space. If you use the LUKS crypt with LVM, the suggest layout would have vg-root too small.
That isn't what I said. I said that Linux is easier than BSD for a desktop and there is no real reason why that should be the case. That is an objective fact.
I would rather use neither of these systems, but the alternatives are worse. At the moment Linux is the least worst option if you want a Desktop OS.
> but also super proud of myself that i can setup X on every FreeBSD machine so nonchalant ;)
As I said it isn't just X.
The point that you don't want to engage with (bit childish tbh), is that a lot of this should completely unnecessary. There really should need to be a fork of the OS for having a desktop configuration that works reasonably well out of the box.
That is failure of both the OS and the community, which judging by your username you seem to be a member.
It isn't nitpicking. Those are like quite noticeable and actually quite bad. By the looks of it, a lot of this has been addressed now. But tbh it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Of course there isn't any OS/DE with inconsistencies the fact that I spot that within like literally a few seconds on such a basic screenshot is indicative of other issues.
Even if it was nitpicking, to create something of high quality you should be extremely critical of your own work. That is how you actually make improvements.
> KDE is good for me. I admit that I simplify the interface in a new setup turning off some things but the fact that it gives me that capability is a huge plus for me.
Things shouldn't need a bunch of changes out of the box for them to be okay. I find that KDE (and have always had this impression since KDE 2 or 3) is it feels they bung a bunch of features in as a checklist. That doesn't create a good interface.
Unfortunately people will defend it. I am not sure why.
Not at all. I can read the man pages and docs fine. Stuff like this should work out of the box by now. It doesn't with the BSDs typically. That is the reality.
Also, it isn't just X. It is other issues once you have X working.
Once you spent a good few hours sorting things out, there is almost no benefit over running a decent Linux distribution where almost all of this working OOTB.
I don't understand why you are getting bent out of shape. I am simply stating the facts as I see them.
> You do You and that's good, just use what you like.
Well obviously I am going to use what I like.
However stating that doesn't mean you stop me (or anyone else) from making constructive criticisms of something you like.
I have used tried many of the *nix variants over the last 20 years. It is just easier to use Linux if you want a desktop OS.
Also Gleen Greenwald will shill absolute any old nonsense. I used to watch his occasionally and he was doing ad read for these awful ads about vegetable drinks, like Alex Jones is infamous for. It was nauseating.
I used to be an operating system enthusiast. I've tried them all at one time. I just have a job now (I have to use Windows at work) and I just not interested in faffing to get graphics working. The experience hasn't changed that much with FreeBSD in 20 years. Some might be okay with that, but I don't really want to have to spend 3 days getting a basic desktop environment behaving properly.
OpenBSD is better in this regard than FreeBSD, I've found.
> However if you have problems getting lost in "menus" but wanna try out a BSD try GhostBSD: https://www.ghostbsd.org/
This is kinda like distro-hopping. I don't want to run some weird fork of the OS, because you will end up with a new set problems potentially. I don't use derivative distros for this very reason and only use mainline distros.
I don't understand why (I don't care for wanky reasons that often quoted) that there isn't a mechanism for me to quickly get up an running with a desktop. The situation hasn't changed in 20+ years. Whereas Linux (for all the faults that it has) has effectively had this problem solved for over a decade now.
To you it is. I installed on 3.8 and it was not straightforward. I used to go to university with a guy that used OpenBSD and he even said the installation at the time was straight forward. So it isn't just me.
I can't remember specifics as it was about 4-6 months. It was something to do with drive labelling IIRC, it was super confusing and I think I just ended up removing drives temporarily.
> you can always exit the installer and restart the process.
Nope. I tried that. It did not work.
> You're not "screwed" unless you reboot at the end without having reflected over your instructions.
Again it wasn't that straight forward.
If you use archinstall as I said you can be up and running in 20 minutes on a fast connection. You literally just state what you want setup through a menu, make a hot drink and you have a working desktop. It is pretty hassle free in my experience.
I haven't tried the FreeBSD installer in a couple of years but I always find that I end up lost in the menus or something doesn't work correctly. Then I am kinda left faffing trying to get X working, ports or something else working. I couldn't set the desktop resolution properly and I suspect there was some magic flag I had set somewhere or install firmware.
I just can't be bothered when I can install Debian or Arch in about 15-20 minutes and everything works fine.
If you look at the LFS compile instructions for each package they are essentially the same as the PKGBUILDs scripts in Arch, I suspect it is similar with Gentoo, Void or any other similar Linux distro.
No not really. I recently took my friend through it and there is several places where it is pretty easy to screw something up. Whenever people say stuff like this, they are usually accustomed to the quirks.
> When I picked a linux distro to put on my system to play games on, the one I choose was void linux, why, mainly because the installer looks and feels directly ripped off from obsd.
Choosing distros based on the installer is kinda a bit silly. I've done a Linux From Scratch build and I can tell you there is very little difference between one distro an another.
It was quite a shock coming from SuSE 9.2. It was much easier to install than FreeBSD, however the installer is even more archaic than FreeBSD. Someone wrote a graphical installer years ago and but nobody bothered with it.
The BSDs really need at least something like the archinstall.
It is certainly different than Linux. You really need to read the FAQ and manuals as you won't find much out by doing a web search, unlike Linux. One of the other things that differs from Linux is that supported hardware / software will work, however Linux hardware support is obviously a lot better than in 2005 when I first started looking at OpenBSD.
I use the OS as a base system and most of the stuff that needs to be newer versions can be done by installing the binary to to ~/bin as it is added to your path by ~/.profile if the directory exists on Debian.
Stuff like Discord, Slack, Kdenlive, OBS etc. I install using flatpak.
Other stuff. Go, Vim (I compile vim from source) and nvim can stuff can be compiled or dropped into /usr/local
That covers most stuff IME. However I appreciate this won't work for everyone.
I ended up installing Dash To Dock and Ubuntu App Indicator Icons when I was using it and I ended up with something decent. I also usually have to faff around in the gnome tweaks tool to get the old "legacy" apps and the new apps looking consistent.
TBF, I was linked their more up to date screenshots in a sibling thread and it does look more consistent but it still seems off.
> I currently use KDE, but am not happy with it for the reasons you described. I used to use GNOME, but wasn't happy with it for the reasons above.
I don't like any of the Linux DEs tbh. They all have issues.
I might give KDE a go. But I think Debian does a poor job at packaging it and I don't really want to change distros.
> I have high hopes for Cosmic [0]. It seems like that one might get the balance right.
I tried compiling Cosmic on source on Debian 12. I ran out of memory on the VM I was doing it on. I also found out that on Debian 12 their rustc was broken!
Those do look better admittedly. I still think it looks a bit "Fischer Price" but that is personal taste.
> Btw as one the web developer behind KDE's website, do you mind telling me where you found that screenshot?
Of course. It was on your screenshots page that I found via DDG
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=KDE+screenshots
The first result I go was:
In this particular part of thread, people were talking about Windows UI replacements. Like it or not conversations do diverge from the original intended purpose.
Secondly, Cinnamon isn't my "pet software". Cinnamon IMO is more similar to the Windows 7/10/11 UI than KDE and has none of the fluff that KDE normally has in it. I actually don't really like any of the Linux UIs. I think they all suffer from significant issues.
> KDE actually was built around the Windows paradigm; Gnome is a Mac clone. Cinnamon is a fork of Gnome maintained as a side project from a distro with a bad security and management track record. Really the only thing it adds is a launcher; KDE optionally provides the same style if the user wants it.
It seems that you really don't like cinnamon and thus why you are being so aggressive. I don't really appreciate the unwarranted hostility.
I don't personally use Linux Mint (I use Debian). I don't like derivative distros for the reason that you highlighted. However Cinnamon seems works reasonably well and tends to be quite a bit lighter than KDE IME.
> This thread is about KDE Connect. Does Cinnamon support that? Does Cinnamon offer anything like it?
You are aware that you can use KDE software in other Desktop Environments? It took me a few seconds to do a web search and it seems that you can use KDE connect and Cinnamon at the same time.
I am not being hyperbolic when I say that I can see a pixel out of place on a webpage on the other side of the room.
https://kde.org/content/home/main.jpg
This is a screenshot from their site. Just in this screenshot I see the following:
1) there is an horrendous text shadow effect on the text under the "Home" desktop icon in the top left.
2) Clock text is too large compared to the rest of the interface, especially the icons next to it.
3) Trash Icon looks like out of place compared to the other icons.
4) Drop shadow effect on the window and the start menu thing. It kinda too dark really.
5) Every single gap between interface elements seems different and off. The icon sizes seem a bit all over the place.
6) There is a gradient on the window title bar and rounded corners. Cinnamon does this as well. I dunno it is very Window XP Luna (which I never liked).
7) The window control icons look off to me and don't fit in with the rest of the interface IMO.
A lot of this I appreciate can be probably be changed. But that is how it comes OOTB if it is an official screenshot. It feels like a Windows Vista ripoff.
Generally I find KDE lacks "taste". None of the Linux GUIs are that great tbh. People put up fancy screenshots, but I guarantee the moment the windows are arranged in any other way it looks not so great.
For people that want a Windows like UI, I would probably suggest Cinnamon. It works pretty much like Windows 7/10 without all the visual nonsense that KDE typically has.
I would make the /boot partition twice the size the installer suggests though as on my laptop I can't upgrade the kernel because the /boot runs out of space. The laptop is used to view old manuals in PDFs while working on my car so I don't really care.
TBH any of the major Linux distros that have been around for a while are fine. I don't like Fedora or Ubuntu because they are a bit corporate.
I personally wouldn't bother with any of the derivative distros. Typically there isn't a lot different other than they've pre-configured some packages. IME that causes more headaches long term.
It does have the effect of what you describe if one file is supplied and might be the most common use case. That doesn't make your description correct, at best it makes it incomplete.